The Reform Proposal: Faster Justice or Greater Injustice?
Under the anticipated reforms, defendants facing certain criminal charges may no longer have their fate decided by a jury of their peers. Instead, their cases could be handled in newly proposed “intermediate courts” presided over solely by judges or magistrates.
Why This Is Happening:
-
Crown Court backlog has reached record highs.
-
Legal system under pressure due to shortages in legal aid, lawyers, and funding.
-
Government hopes intermediate courts will streamline the system and ease case congestion.
But critics argue that the move sacrifices fairness for expediency—and disproportionately affects Black, Asian, and other minority ethnic (BAME) communities.
A Justice System at Risk: Expert Warnings
“This Is a Dangerous Precedent”
Matt Foot, co-director of the charity Appeal, which helps overturn wrongful convictions, warns this reform could result in more miscarriages of justice.
“Reducing jury rights will inevitably increase the number of miscarriages of justice,” Foot says. “Judges tend to be privately educated and white, which is far removed from the makeup of a jury.”
He highlights that juries, while not perfect, offer a level of representation and community insight that is currently missing from the judiciary.
“A Threat to Fair Trial for All”
Tyrone Steele, deputy legal director at Justice, a leading human rights law reform organization, echoes the concern.
“Jury trial is an important means of safeguarding fairness and confidence in our criminal courts. Racialised defendants are convicted at similar rates to white counterparts in jury trials. But in magistrates’ courts, the disparities are stark.”
Shocking Statistics:
-
Black women are 22% more likely to be found guilty in magistrates’ courts than white women.
-
Only 1% of judges in England and Wales are Black—a figure unchanged for a decade.
-
Among magistrates, 14% are from ethnic minorities, compared to 19% of the general population.
These numbers reveal the systemic lack of diversity in the very institutions that would assume greater power under the new reforms.
Institutional Bias: A Known Problem, Now Magnified?
In 2022, a University of Manchester study co-authored by barrister Keir Monteith KC found troubling trends in the legal profession:
-
56% of legal professionals surveyed had witnessed a judge acting in a racially biased way.
-
52% observed racial discrimination in judicial decision-making.
This raises major concerns that giving judges greater authority—without juries acting as a community safeguard—could institutionalize bias.
Representation Gap in the Judiciary
Judges:
-
12% from ethnic minorities.
-
Only 1% Black—unchanged in 10 years.
Magistrates:
-
14% from ethnic minorities.
-
Skew older, wealthier, and whiter than general population.
According to Justice, even if two lay magistrates were to accompany the judge in an intermediate court, they would still not reflect society’s diversity.
“The magistracy continues to disproportionately attract middle-class applicants aged 50 and above,” Justice notes.
In contrast, juries are randomly selected and tend to better reflect the UK’s demographic and socioeconomic diversity.
Impact on Prisons and Public Trust
Foot also warns that judge-only trials could contribute to more convictions and longer prison sentences, just as the UK faces a crisis in prison overcrowding.
Moreover, removing jury trials—especially without public consultation—could lead to a collapse in public confidence in the legal system, particularly in BAME communities.
“At a time when public trust in institutions is already low, this would send the wrong signal,” says Steele. “It’s justice without a jury—and that’s not justice for all.”
Reform or Regression? What Comes Next
Justice and other reformers are calling for:
-
Clarification that intermediate courts are a temporary emergency measure, not a permanent change.
-
Increased judicial diversity through targeted recruitment.
-
Better funding for legal aid and support staff, rather than systemic changes that reduce rights.
The Bigger Picture
This proposal comes at a time when multiple reviews—including the Louise Casey report—have exposed systemic racism, homophobia, and class bias in the police and criminal justice system.
Stripping away jury trials, reformers argue, is a step backwards, not forward.
Justice Can’t Be Rushed
The desire to unclog the courts is understandable. But in a democracy, the rights of the accused must remain paramount—particularly when those accused come from historically marginalized groups.
For business leaders, policymakers, and social stakeholders, the message is clear: Efficiency cannot come at the cost of fairness. Rebuilding trust in the justice system requires reforms rooted in equality, transparency, and accountability—not short-term solutions that exacerbate structural bias.
